LAST week, on the eve of the Senate fight over filibusters of judicial nominations, the Supreme Court handed down a timely ruling. It illuminated the ambiguities of the vocabulary used in discussions of judges and the craft of construing the Constitution.

The case concerned Michigan and New York laws that forbid the interstate sale of wines directly from wineries to consumers.

The states say the laws serve legitimate local interests by simplifying tax collection and reducing underage drinking. But during last December’s oral arguments, the two states’ solicitor generals could not convincingly say how, and Michigan’s said that the Constitution’s 21st Amendment permits “mere protectionism” by states concerning alcoholic beverages.

Article I, Section 8, supposedly defines the federal government as one whose powers are limited because they are enumerated. But among the enumerated things “Congress shall have power” to do is “regulate commerce … among the several states.” As a result of capacious and sometimes meretricious definitions of what constitutes interstate commerce, this enumerated power has become an almost boundless grant of power to Congress because almost anything can be said to have some pertinence to commerce.

But the commerce clause is clearly pertinent to the interstate sales of wines. So this clause looks like a scythe sharp enough to cut down laws interfering with Internet and other direct wine sales to individuals. What defense could New York and Michigan offer?

This one: The 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th, thereby ending prohibition, says: “The transportation or importation into any state … for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

Last week the court held, 5-4, that the commerce clause trumps the 21st Amendment. The amendment, the court held, empowers each state to regulate the distribution of alcohol within its borders but not to discriminate between in-state and out-of-state businesses for the financial benefit of the former. However, the dissenting minority said that even if Michigan’s and New York’s policies are unwise or unseemly, the 21st Amendment took such policy choices away from judges and gave them to the states.

Last week’s ruling divided the justices into unlikely factions, thereby providing a timely reminder that concepts such as “judicial activism,” “strict construction” and “original intent” have limited value in explaining or predicting the court’s behavior.

Writing for the majority was Anthony Kennedy, joined by Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative justice, and two of the most liberal — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — and David Souter. Clarence Thomas, writing for the dissenters, is the most conservative if Scalia isn’t. He was joined by the three oldest justices — John Paul Stevens, 85, perhaps the most liberal, and William Rehnquist, 80, and Sandra Day O’Connor, 75. Those three are old enough to remember the importance voters once attached to states’ widely varying approaches to regulating alcohol.

Stevens noted that former Justice Hugo Black, who as a U.S. senator from Alabama participated in sending the 21st Amendment to the states for approval, said it was intended to return “‘absolute control’ of liquor traffic to the states, free of all restrictions which the commerce clause might before that time have imposed.”

So, when the court overturned the policies regarding wine traffic set by representatives of the people of Michigan and New York, was it practicing “judicial activism”? Was it strictly construing the Constitution’s text as illuminating by the discernible intent of the authors of the text? During this week’s argument about judicial nominees, remember last week’s division on the court.

More in News

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, claiming the department's failure to prevent Dungeness crab gear from harassing, injuring and killing endangered whales and sea turtles violates the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

The report by the Public Policy Institute of California surveyed 204 school districts across California at the end of the 2016-17 school year about their progress in implementing the Next Generation Science Standards, which were adopted in 2013 and which schools are currently introducing.

Monday, Feb. 19 Vehicle theft: A 2003 Ford E150 van was stolen overnight from Feb. 16-17 from the 1800 block of Arlington Boulevard. Warrant: A 32-year-old female from Richmond was arrested on a Marin County burglary warrant at Cutting Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue. Warrant: A 28-year-old transient man was arrested at the Lucky Supermarket at 1000 El Cerrito Plaza...